Very nice, David. It looks like dawn, but the exif says you shot this around 10:30 in the middle of July. Was your camera's clock set correctly?

Thanks, Russ. That would have been about right. I was shooting into the sun with lots of heavy clouds and peeks of sun through them. You're looking through about 30 miles of haze, which I did darken a bit. The mountains are very steep there and would still have had quite a bit of shade plus shadows from the clouds. So how do you look at the EXIF information on these posts? I have wanted to do that but didn't know how. Thought it was scrubbed when posted. I'd be happy to share the original nef and tell you what I did re post. Awkward question, but do you feel this image is somehow misleading? If so, that would be an important and much appreciated insight.

Not to me and I see a great image. I am jealous as I've been to that same spot and didn't see the shot. We all do some PP work to attempt to show what we saw when we made the shot, which isn't always reflected in the RAW data.

So how do you look at the EXIF information on these posts? . . . Awkward question, but do you feel this image is somehow misleading? If so, that would be an important and much appreciated insight.

No, not at all. I think you have to take a photograph for what it is, or at least what it seems to you to be. I was just curious, so I downloaded the jpeg and brought it up for a second in Lightroom, which always is open on my computer. No, the exif isn't scrubbed by default. You can scrub it, but I've found that having the exif available can help a lot on a critique forum.

The Wasatch Front as viewed from Antelope Island SE across The Great Salt Lake.

This is a hard photograph to embrace. On the one hand there is a kind of majestic subject matter, but on the other hand there is the photograph OF it. The former being great, the latter being flawed somewhat. I want the image in other words to match the expectation.

There are two difficulties here. First there are two subjects (maybe even two photographs) disconnected and never quite brought into cohesion. There is the snaky ribbon in the foreground and there is the majestic range in the back and they are separated by an indistinct band of white'ishness that is not wholly attractive. A bit shocking. The snaky ribbon exits hard right off the stage, and then we have to stop and go back to the mountains and appreciate them separately. I have a hard time making it work to hold my interest.

The tones feel harsh. Color could soften the whole affair and possibly unify it, and B&W could make it all richer in scope, but this doesn't seem to do either. It feels gritty and rather two dimensional. In particular the mountains have no significant detail along their face. And again, the harsh looking white band through the middle makes two pictures out of one.

Time of day, or atmosphere or position or all three have conspired to make this photograph difficult to dive into and experience what this view has to offer.

Chrisc-Thanks! It was the light reflecting off the road that caught my eye. This was summer and you get a lot of haze and during the winter we get this awful inversion layer. You have to be out there at the right time and the right conditions and in my experience those line up if you're lucky.

Amolitor-LOL

RG-Interesting take and I appreciate the honest reaction. The actual subject in my mind was that snaking road "On the Road to Fielding Garr Ranch" and the way the light was reflecting off of it. Not trying to be defensive, but the rest was context to me. Thanks for the feedback.

RG-Interesting take and I appreciate the honest reaction. The actual subject in my mind was that snaking road "On the Road to Fielding Garr Ranch" and the way the light was reflecting off of it. Not trying to be defensive, but the rest was context to me. Thanks for the feedback.

I didn't take it as defense in any way. Good explanation of your intentions. I don't want to be tedious, but the high contrast interface of the mountain/sky just overwhelms the more delicate subject of that ribbon-like road. I find it hard to keep my eye on your subject in other words. It is a great subject, and a good idea.

I mostly like this. There's a little trouble for me at the far shoreline, we have what appears to be an abrupt transition, which I am not quite believing. Doesn't mean it's not real, it just means that I don't visually understand it, and so it looks unreal and wrong.

The mountains are rendered nicely - one of the problems in painting is rendering "atmosphere" well, and it is no less a problem in photographs. We just have to count on reality herself to solve it for us, and here she has done a fine job The mountains feel very distant -- which is basically the problem at the shoreline. The shore feels "far less distant" than the mountains which appear to be only a little further off.

I like the foreground, it's pretty, it's interesting, it's got some drama. It looks cold, it looks wet. I am glad to be looking at it from here, rather than from there

I mostly like this. There's a little trouble for me at the far shoreline, we have what appears to be an abrupt transition, which I am not quite believing. Doesn't mean it's not real, it just means that I don't visually understand it, and so it looks unreal and wrong.

The mountains are rendered nicely - one of the problems in painting is rendering "atmosphere" well, and it is no less a problem in photographs. We just have to count on reality herself to solve it for us, and here she has done a fine job The mountains feel very distant -- which is basically the problem at the shoreline. The shore feels "far less distant" than the mountains which appear to be only a little further off.

I like the foreground, it's pretty, it's interesting, it's got some drama. It looks cold, it looks wet. I am glad to be looking at it from here, rather than from there

Actually, it was a July morning about 80 fahrenheit. I wonder if what you are seeing about 20-25 miles distant is the edge of the lake about 10 miles from the mountains. Between the lake and the mountains is the SLC airport and the city itself. I will take a look at this and see if I can figure out what the discontinuity is. A photograph shouldn't take so much splainin!

Does the 10 miles from lake edge to the mountains occur in a very very narrow horizontal band, in the image?

This is probably what I am seeing. Relatively clear air over the lake, and then the bulk of the haze appears over the land, on the far side. It makes a fair sharp transition from the edge of the lake to the foot of the mountains, perhaps 5-10 percent of the image height is covering 10 miles of distance, and most of the atmospheric haze.

I could not tell that the mountains were set well back from the lake, so this visual transition seemed (and still seems!) rather sharp.

I mostly like this. There's a little trouble for me at the far shoreline, we have what appears to be an abrupt transition, which I am not quite believing. Doesn't mean it's not real, it just means that I don't visually understand it, and so it looks unreal and wrong.

I might know what you're seeing...it is a "line" part way up into the mountains, about 3/8 up at the base of the mountains. If that's it, we call that the "Upper Bench" and it reflects the residual of the shoreline of the ancient Lake Bonneville. You can see this feature all around the valley. If that's not it, I can see the end of the water, the extensive mudflats, the airport and freeways, the city etc.

(big laugh) How true! It shouldn't. One thing that might happen is like with proof reading. The writer keeps seeing it as he intended, the proofreader sees it as it is. You know what each element is by knowledge, I only see them as dark and light spots.

Does the 10 miles from lake edge to the mountains occur in a very very narrow horizontal band, in the image?

This may help: From the left edge of the photogrph, the base of the mountains is about 15-20 miles. On the right edge it's about 35-40 miles. So on the right edge you are seeing a lot of atmospheric "compression." I hadn't look this closely before, perhaps because I take the "geometry" for granted.

(big laugh) How true! It shouldn't. One thing that might happen is like with proof reading. The writer keeps seeing it as he intended, the proofreader sees it as it is. You know what each element is by knowledge, I only see them as dark and light spots.

Exactly! See my 12:44:09 post. And good point about the proofreader's perspective. I understand that from writing, but had never considered it re photography Learnin' learnin' learnin'